Case 3301442/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs SR Patel v Yathra Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301442/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs SR Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs SR Patel brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Yathra Group Ltd. The tribunal noted that the claim form implied she had been employed for less than two years. It also recorded an email from the claimant's representative dated 30 May 2024 saying that the claimant left because she had not been paid her own wages and knew other people had also not been paid.
Applying section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that there were no reasonable prospects that the claimant could show she had been employed for at least two years or that any exception to the qualifying period applied. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment and that separate orders had been sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal found no reasonable prospects that the claimant could show two years' service or bring herself within an exception to the qualifying period under s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.